UK music managers tackle Apple over royalty payments

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #2
    I thought digital downloads are supposed to help artists by cutting overhead. Guess not.

    "Technology discount"? Ha. That's a good one.

    Looks like the record companies are dragging Apple into another ugly fight here.
     
  3. macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #3
    This is another record company attempt at getting public pressure on Apple to cut prices by saying that because the companies aren't setting the download prices, the artists are suffering.

    The trouble is that since it's the record companies who set the % of royalties from each channel of revenue, it's them that should be cutting their profit level if they want the artists to prosper - which they could do if they stopped paying mediocre artists huge advances and then spending massive amounts of cash to market crap songs.
     
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #4
    Record Companies win on all fronts

    It's amazing that the record companies are trying to blame Apple for this reduction in royalties to artists and songwriters. The record companies not only cut their payments to the musicians, but they also get to cut their production and distribution costs for CDs--they come out ahead on all fronts yet are still losing money.

    Maybe they need to look at their business practices and stop blaming P2P, musicians, Apple, etc. for their failures. And a new technology discount--what kind of crap is that?
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    #5
    Agreed - these folks are complaining at the wrong person. It's like a farmer filing suit against a grocery store because they don't get enough of a cut from Nalley's Chili - they need to go after Nalley, not the grocery store for that.
     
  6. macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #6
    Apple could score a big PR coup if they said they'd decrease their cut by, say 3 cents per song, provided the record companies would adopt the same decrease of their (much larger) cut, in order to give artists an additional 6 cents per song. Then when the record companies refuse, it'd be incredibly obvious who the real greedy bastards are.
     
  7. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    #7
    This is all a big joke.

    The record labels are getting more per iTMS download than they get per-song for CD sales. If the artists are receiving less, then it's the fault of the record labels, not Apple.

    New Technology discount? You want to know what this really is? It was invented when CDs were invented so the labels could raise the price from $10 to $16, without increasing the royalty payments to the artist.

    The artists didn't seem to care too much when the new technology was selling for more than the old, but they're getting the royal screw-job when the new technology sells for less than the old.
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    winmacguy

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #8
    My thoughts exactly! :mad:
    Why is it that the article seems to keep trying to shift the blame on to APPLE for denighing the artists their royalties rather
    "Unhappiness with Apple’s flat 79p a track pricing exists across the music industry, but the Californian computer company has been so dominant in the download market that it has been able to set rates." than blaming the record companies for charging so much. :confused: :mad:
     
  9. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #9
    From the article:
    I doubt Apple cares what percentage the record companies pay the artists. Artists who go through a place like CD Baby* get a much higher percentage than even the 12% figure. It's not Apple, it's the greedy record labels.

    * Disclaimer: I am a customer of CD Baby due to their selection of artists. Other than being a customer I am not affiliated with them in any way.
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    #10
    Apple pays the copyright holder. They're not responsible for what (if anything) the copyright holder pays the artist.

    It's my understanding that the copyright holder gets 65-70 cents out of each $0.99 song. If that same ratio is used in the UK, that means the label is getting 52-56p from each 79p sale.

    If the artists are only getting 6p of that (10-12% of what the label gets), then they have to take it up with the label.

    Put another way, even if Apple would triple their price, do you seriously think the record label is going to triple what the artists get? If history means anything, they'll find some other legal loophole to pocket the entire difference. And they'll still go around telling the artists that it's Apple's fault they're not getting paid.
     
  11. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #11
    Apple are opposing changes in the share that goes to artists. As noted in the article: "The MCPS/PRS wants to receive 12 per cent per song — discounted to 8 per cent for two years — rather than the existing 8.5 per cent, but the scheme has been challenged by Apple, the BPI and other online retailers before the Copyright Tribunal."
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    mrsebastian

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Location:
    sunny san diego
    #12
    i don't have the time nor resources to find out for sure, but somehow i get the feeling that the complaining party in this article is very likely influenced by the record companies. apple keeping fair prices has nothing to do with the record companies taking an ungodly percentage.
     
  13. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #13
    They are talking about statutory rates. Those are set by governments, not labels.
     
  14. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #14
    Funny, I don't see them suing Wal-Mart for their failure to get paid.

    Apple isn't responsible for paying these artists directly.

    Like Wal-Mart -- they turn over the payment and are done with it.

    It's up to the companies they are directly contracted with to make sure they get paid.

    But this is so like a US lawsuit... :rolleyes:
     
  15. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #15
    They may not be pulling the trigger, but Apple are most certainly opposing a larger percentage of sales being handed over to artists. (To clarify, they are opposing the idea that artists would be entitled to a larger percentage of the fees they already pay. To make it really clear, in those proceedings Apple are directly supporting labels and opposing artists.) Link.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #16
    Right, I saw that. But what is Apple supposed to do? They're receiving pennies from their cut, while the recording companies take the lion's share of revenue from each song.

    A mandated increase in royalties for songwriters and artists forces Apple and the recording labels to fight over what's left -- and as we know, that battle is already nasty enough.

    Which is why I reiterate that Apple's being dragged into a fight they'd rather not be in; if they take the side of the songwriters and artists, that will probably antagonize the record companies to the point of no return.
     

Share This Page